AUSD: Legal Opinion Stated “Current” or “New” Board Could Have Made Rocketship Charter Vote

The Antioch Unified School District Board voted 3-2 last week to approve a petition by Rocketship Charter School to open in 2018.

The controversial vote being discussed is which AUSD Board members should have been voting. The current board which included two appointments, or a new board of 5-elected trustees?

According to the Antioch Unified School District Education Code, 9300 — BP 9307 Item III:

“Members of the Board of Education are elected at large biennially on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each succeeding even-numbered year to fill the office of those members whose terms expire on the first Friday of December next succeeding the election.

Based on the educational code, Board Members Diane Gibson-Gray, Fernando Navarro and Alonzo Terry, both who were not re-elected, terms expired on December 2, 2016. The votes they casts occurred on December 7^th.

State law on the other hand states:

  5017.  Each person elected at a regular biennial governing board member election shall hold office for a term of four years commencing on the first Friday in December next succeeding his or her election. Any member of the governing board of a school district or community college district whose term has expired shall continue to discharge the duties of the office until his or her successor has qualified. The term of the successor shall begin upon the expiration of the term of his or her predecessor.

Under state law, Board Members Gibson-Gray, Fernando Navarro and Alonzo Terry would continue to serve until the new board is seated.

According to AUSD Board President Diane Gibson-Gray, after receiving a legal opinion seeing if a new board could be seated prior to the Rocketship hearing, she asked Board Members Walter Ruehlig and Debra Vinson to make the decision to allow either the current Board to vote on Rocketship or seat the newly elected board members Gary Hack and Chrystal Sawyer-White.

Since the election was certified on December 6, the new board could have been sworn in at anytime prior to the start time of the school board meeting on December 7.

“When I heard on Friday December 2nd that the certification by CCC Clerk/Recorder would most occur on Tuesday, December 6th, I requested an opinion from the Board’s Attorney as to which board should hear the Rocketship Charter Petition,” explained Gibson-Gray. “I received an attorney / client document late Friday and the legal opinion was clear that it was permissible to go with either the new board or the old board.”

With no definitive answer from legal, Gibson-Gray put the decision on the two board members who were not involved in the most recent election.

“Given that there was no clear cut answer and that I was part of the newly elected/re-elected trustees, I called Board Vice President mid-morning on Monday, December 5th to ask him if I could defer the decision to him, as Vice President, and Board Member Vinson, as two as the existing board members not involved in the election process. During that conversation, I did not give him my opinion or thoughts on the matter. I was very clear that Debra was to be his “one” board member to discuss the issue. My request was to provide me with the decision after they had that conversation so that I could set the agenda and have it posted,” explained Diane Gibson-Gray. “I then forwarded the opinion to him, he and Debra conferred and he let me know that their decision was to go with the old board and the agenda was posted Monday, 12/5 in the afternoon.”

Superintendent Stephanie Anello confirmed the legal opinion which did not give direction one way or another on which board should make the vote. That decision would be at the pleasure of the Board.

Ruehlig explained his decision Monday saying he had various reasons saying the legal opinion provided them with a choice—yet a choice he understands doesn’t please everyone.

“At the November 12th meeting, Associate Superintendent Chris Learned clearly stated that it was only logical for the Board who heard the Petition to be the one to vote on it,” said Ruehlig. “Nobody disagreed with his logic at that meeting and nobody disagreed with the suggested final hearing date of November 29^th.”

He also said to his understanding the District sent out as many as four dates to the petitioner.

“At the October 26 meeting AUSD counsel, verbally and in letter, stated that the County Elections Office had stated that due to the number of outstanding ballots the election would not be confirmed until November 8th. In order to meet the 60 day deadline a Special Meeting was set for December 7th and it was again reaffirmed that the current Board would sit,” said Ruehlig. “It’s not like we forced these dates and excluded participation.  In fact, both the original and secondary dates were offered us.”

Ruehlig also confirmed both he and Ms. Vinson were asked by the Board President to make the decision.

“I did not seek the responsibility and actually tried to demur. Why would I want a bulls-eye because somebody would disagree no matter how you decided?” said Ruehlig. “Diane felt any vote she made might be seen as partial as she had run against the sitting Trustees and also  had earlier expressed her opinion that the new Board should consider. To be a trooper, then, I said I would talk to Debra and decide. Somebody had to.”

He highlighted how the legal advice from their Board counsel and opinion from the Election Chief were just extra and added cause.

“Personally, I felt it wrong to the old Board and to the new trustees to change horses midstream,” said Ruehlig. “Normally, it is done at the next regular meeting after election confirmation.  The big decider though was the  old Trustees had vested so much time and forethought into their final decisions. Furthermore, asking the new board some 24 hours before the huge decision to swear in and weigh all the evidence would have been, in my mind, unfair and injudicious.”

Ruehlig says for him, he put a lot of hours into reading material, visiting schools, talking to people and simply pondering. Ultimately he says keeping the current board on for the vote was the right thing to do.

Ruehlig Blasts 23-Page Rocketship Report

During last weeks meeting, Walter Ruehlig highlighted how 48-hours was not enough time to review the documents associated with the Charter Petition.

When asked why documents were not released earlier, she says they were.

“A summary attorney / client 3 page document was sent to the board on 11/29 outlining the petition deficiencies along with their recommendation to deny the petition. The 23 page document was not the first communication to the board of that recommendation. The public document posted with the agenda on Monday provided the details. A Special Board Meeting has a 24-hour posting requirement and I wanted it posted earlier than required so that the board / public would have time to review,” said Gibson-Gray.

Ruehlig said via email the draft rejection made very sketchy points but no elaboration.

“It was more than unfairness to the Board that made the 49 hour report unseemly.  It was a complete kabash to the Petitioner and any opportunity to go back and forth and answer unclarities, many of which could have bene summarily dismissed with a phone call or memo,” said Ruehlig. “I didn’t see the good faith which to my model would be to give every opportunity to, early on, iron things out and, if remaining logger jams continued, then ultimately consider the possibility it was not workable.”

He further highlighted he did not understand why it was preordained it would fail review.

“Irony is that it would have invariably been passed at County or State appeal but we would then have lost any oversight. That to me makes no sense,” said Ruehlig.